I agree with the editor that sometimes, people need to stop and think about what they're trying to achieve by pairing a photo with an article. Though I haven't seen the picture, I've seen countless articles about competitions or other athletes that supposed to be feel-good stories, but are just so unfortunate and sometimes give me second-hand embarrassment because of the pictures they choose to include.

I also agree with the editor's defense of using Chan falling as an accompaniment to that particular article about him because it was about him winning despite falling--I think it would have been a little wrong for them to use a picture of him triumphant like he'd just completed a perfect performance. (Don't get me wrong, it's not because I don't like Chan--I think it would have been appropriate if it were any other skater who had been in the same, erm, "situation" that he was in on Friday.)

Kaetlyn herself seems OK with it. At least it is a happy picture. The ones that are really objectionable, to me, are the pictures that show a bad fall with the girl's legs awkwardly splayed out. There was a famous picture of Debi Thomas falling at the Olympics like that, which people thought was adding insult to injury.

A newspaper once published a very funny picture of Sasha Cohen, coming straight at the camera in a forward fan spiral with a disgusted look on her face that said, "What are you lookin' at, jerk-face!"

In this particular circumstance, I don't think Kaetlyn's words should be used to defend the use of the photo, because it seems to me that a young girl in her position could only say that she was okay with it. I mean, she may truly be okay with it, but even if she weren't, in fact, especially if she weren't okay with it, she would still say she was okay with it, I think.

In principle, is it okay to use what would be seen in general society as a sexualized photo of an underaged girl to promote her and her sport? I don't think it is. Also, Kaetyln has a beautiful face and a beautiful figure of not only an athlete but of a woman. But the photo makes her crotch the focal point and I think that's what makes the photo insulting. I'm kind of reminded of the 'boob song' controversy at the Academy's this year, when there was a debate about reducing actresses' performances to boobs. I say, if you are going to admire someone for being a beautiful woman, admire the woman, not parts of her anatomy!

I've seen the picture and I don't understand the inclusion, either. She has a beautiful smile and does indeed look wonderful otherwise, but I'm sure there could've been other pictures where she was equally wonderful with her smile, so why not go with any of them instead? And I agree with hurrah - what else was she going to say? No, I'm totally not okay with being featured on the front page of one of the only two existing national papers in Canada? I'm not saying women should all cover ourselves from head to toe, but I don't buy the G&M wouldn't have seen the controversial nature of the shot, and I don't buy that picture is the only one that would encapsulate the spirit of her program.

I guess I'm super dense, but when I first looked at the photo, I was trying to figure out why she felt the need to respond. It's only when people (like the public editor) pointed it out that I was like "ah." But I guess I looked at her face, smile and her leg and not her crotch.

I guess if the photographer could have done it differently was to perhaps move to where he/she is taking that photo from the side. I like the concept, but the angle could have been done different.

Surely you see the difference, at least I think you would if you saw the picture. The perverts out there will get a thrill out of it. And the costume itself looks cheap.

That's why there have been several bans on flesh colored tights, at least with black, white or pink tights it woudn't look so cheap.
If you ask me any skater wearing flesh colored tights should receive a costume deduction because you know you'll attract the wrong kind of crowd.
All in all that would solve this outrage, no offence to anyone though.

That's why there have been several bans on flesh colored tights, at least with black, white or pink tights it woudn't look so cheap.
If you ask me any skater wearing flesh colored tights shoudl receive a costume deduction because you know you'll attract the wrong kind of crowd.
All in all that would solve this outrage, no offence to anyone though.

Flesh-colored tights have been around for a good while in the sport, and no one has yet raised serious hubbub about it. They look natural and don't draw attention away from the overall presentation. White or pink tights, IMO, would distract from the image that the skater is trying to present, mostly because it's difficult to match those colors in a way that makes them aesthetically pleasing. And a lot of posters on this forum have already complained about Elizaveta Tuktamysheva's black tights that make her look sluggish and slow. Can you imagine girls of Gracie Gold or Ashley Wagner's coloring in black tights?

I think that this argument could better be raised for gymnasts--teenage girls who wear leotards over completely bare legs.

Flesh-colored tights have been around for a good while in the sport, and no one has yet raised serious hubbub about it. They look natural and don't draw attention away from the overall presentation. White or pink tights, IMO, would distract from the image that the skater is trying to present, mostly because it's difficult to match those colors in a way that makes them aesthetically pleasing. And a lot of posters on this forum have already complained about Elizaveta Tuktamysheva's black tights that make her look sluggish and slow. Can you imagine girls of Gracie Gold or Ashley Wagner's coloring in black tights?

I think that this argument could better be raised for gymnasts--teenage girls who wear leotards over completely bare legs.

On the contrary, they do draw attention otherwise this article wouldn't appear right, plus they just never mention anything seriously mainly because it's somehing guys love to see hence the one who sparked an outrage was a woman.

Whether it's black, white or pink tights i can't possibly comprehend how it would distract anyone from any image, in fact it actually gives you the oppertunity portray your character even better.

The skaters may be wearing pants/low rise leggings but basically it would look the same with low rise capezio tights anyway.
If you have noticed the skaters performed Y spins, Bielmann spins and yet there was nothing to see compared to Keatlyn Osmond's situation where she was holding up a leg wearing flesh colored tights, had she worn colored tights you would hardly even see any intimate body parts.

I don't know how black tights can make you look slower and sluggish because clearly i haven't noticed anything
Also i can't recall many posters complaining, maybe some.

Can i imagine girls of Gracie Gold or Ashley Wagner's coloringin black tights, yes it would look cool but i would also love to see different kind of colored tights like red or even blue, now that would look so awesome on them

Not really, basically flesh colored tights look bare because it's based on bare legs right, so it doesn't really make a difference at all, it looks the same hence the photo about Keatlyn Osmond.
If you ask me pants looks much better on teenage gymnasts.